Don't shoot the Rookie :D

[roteague]

I'm not sure why you are getting annoyed with me. As I said, I have sympathy for the situation colour workers are in and understand the constraints you now have. Clearly you agree with me that APUG does not discuss digital steps, you do not do so here, so you must. If you want to change that situation then talk to Sean: it is not my site.

Sorry Bob, I'm not annoyed with you, it is more a sense of frustration at being able to participate/not particpate in APUG. I'm welcome to support APUG, financially and in other ways, but my final work isn't welcome. Oh transparency scans are acceptable in the gallery, but participation in the APUG sales gallery isn't. I'm not selling ink jet prints here - which I hate - I'm selling RA-4 Fuji Crystal Archives. My starting point is traditional (film) and end point is traditional (photographic paper), but there are just some things I have no control over - like the reality of the marketplace when it comes to working with color.

I'm also not interested in discussing digital steps, there are plenty of other forums that do that (and which I don't participate in). But, I do acknowledge the use of a Chromira printer.

 

[Bob F.]

Sorry Bob, I'm not annoyed with you, it is more a sense of frustration at being able to participate/not particpate in APUG. I'm welcome to support APUG, financially and in other ways, but my final work isn't welcome. Oh transparency scans are acceptable in the gallery, but participation in the APUG sales gallery isn't. I'm not selling ink jet prints here - which I hate - I'm selling RA-4 Fuji Crystal Archives. My starting point is traditional (film) and end point is traditional (photographic paper), but there are just some things I have no control over - like the reality of the marketplace when it comes to working with color.

I'm also not interested in discussing digital steps, there are plenty of other forums that do that (and which I don't participate in). But, I do acknowledge the use of a Chromira printer.

FWIW, I tend to agree with you: given the constraints on colour workers these days some flexibility, expressly for colour, would get my vote.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[naturephoto1]

FWIW, I tend to agree with you: given the constraints on colour workers these days some flexibility, expressly for colour, would get my vote.

Cheers, Bob.

Bob,

Speaking for myself, I appreciate the support of the B&W shooters at APUG such as yourself. As color transparency shooters, we are almost at a point where our hands are almost tied.

Rich

 

[Shane Knight]

This is one of many reasons why I have stuck with traditional materials. This talk of hands being tied, no options... is getting really old. Thank goodness for the folks who chose vintage processes like cyantype and platinum/palladium from true negatives; not an easy road, but they took it.

I chose cibachrome/ilfochrome... not easy and not cheap. I had to make many changes in business, where I live, the way I shoot..etc.... but it is very worth it. One of the greatest benefits is that I am offering a product made my hand without any talk of digital.

I understand that some do not have a choice in the matter, but that does not mean we (color and B/W) here on APUG need to accept digital printing.

I see no differences (in regards the "digital step") between inkjet and and chromira/lightjet prints. You shoot film, scan, photoshop, digital output.
If APUG is going to allowing chromira/lightjet, then we have to allow inkjet prints also... they use film too. Where will it stop?

The above is just my opinion and I am not saying the chromira/lightjet prints are bad; I am glad you guys are using film, it helps us all. I just dont believe the digital process is accepted/appropriate here on APUG.

Welcome Scrobb, I believe the answer to your question is "YES", you are a film shooter.

Someone above mentioned honesty.....
I wonder if the people that are buying photographs from film users that are using digital processes understand what they are buying. Since I am in the business, I am always scouting out art shows, and it amazes me how many photographers hide or don't mention the fact they are digital printing, but they are real fast about mentioning that they use traditional film... does the customer just assume the prints are traditional.

I am glad that APUG Sales gallery is 100% traditional... at least my customers know what they are getting.

Shane Knight
www.shaneknight.com

 

[naturephoto1]

This is one of many reasons why I have stuck with traditional materials. This talk of hands being tied, no options... is getting really old. Thank goodness for the folks who chose vintage processes like cyantype and platinum/palladium from true negatives; not an easy road, but they took it.

snip


Someone above mentioned honesty.....
I wonder if the people that are buying photographs from film users that are using digital processes understand what they are buying. Since I am in the business, I am always scouting out art shows, and it amazes me how many photographers hide or don't mention the fact they are digital printing, but they are real fast about mentioning that they use traditional film... does the customer just assume the prints are traditional.

snip

Shane Knight
www.shaneknight.com

Gee Shane,

I am sorry that the comments about hands being tied and having no options is getting old to you. I have been a color transparency photographer for over 30 years. Until recently (this past January) I always lived in an apartment with no space for a darkroom. Prior to printing with EverColor Fine Art and Laser Light Photographics using 4 color separation digital negatives and a LightJet or Chromira Machine to print my work I had my work hand printed as Cibachromes or Ilfochromes.

There is also a big difference between images printed on a LightJet or Chromira machnine and an InkJet/Giclee. Images printed on a LightJet or Chromira machine are printed on true photo paper be it Fuji, Kodak, or Ilfochrome. InkJet/Giclee prints are either on a paper designed for printing by such machines, water color paper, or canvas.

As to your comment about honesty. All of my hand printed Cibachromes/Ilfochromes or Fuji SuperGloss images and my digital output as a 4 color separation print or a LightJet or Chromira print have always been identified as to what they were to the public at Art Shows and in galleries.

Rich

 

[Shane Knight]

Gee Shane,

I am sorry that the comments about hands being tied and having no options is getting old to you. I have been a color transparency photographer for over 30 years. Until recently (this past January) I always lived in an apartment with no space for a darkroom. Prior to printing with EverColor Fine Art and Laser Light Photographics using 4 color separation digital negatives and a LightJet or Chromira Machine to print my work I had my work hand printed as Cibachromes or Ilfochromes.

Please don't appologize, this talk about the lack of support on APUG regarding digital prints becoming a broken record.

There is also a big difference between images printed on a LightJet or Chromira machnine and an InkJet/Giclee. Images printed on a LightJet or Chromira machine are printed on true photo paper be it Fuji, Kodak, or Ilfochrome. InkJet/Giclee prints are either on a paper designed for printing by such machines, water color paper, or canvas.

REALLY.... doesn't matter, they are both digital. Your term "true" can very subjective when it comes to grey areas.

As to your comment about honesty. All of my hand printed Cibachromes/Ilfochromes or Fuji SuperGloss images and my digital output as a 4 color separation print or a LightJet or Chromira print have always been identified as to what they were to the public at Art Shows and in galleries.

Rich

Did I mention your name; nope.
By the way since you mentioned it, I noticed on your PUBLIC website that you mention quite a few details about traditional film cameras, and nothing about the digital processes you use to create your digital prints.

gee... I quess that was my point.

Shane

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I almost have to laugh about some of the replies. When I look through the APUG Gallery, and see Fuji Crystal Raster Prints, who is checking to make sure those were enlarger prints rather than machine prints? Furthermore, when I see images someone made by rephotographing images from Vogue magazine, Then the distinction of acceptable really blurs; no matter how someone does it, or what methods, if you photograph a photograph from someone else, you are violating copyright laws . . . yet somehow those images are there in the APUG Gallery, and being sold. Now maybe that particular individual got permission from the original photographer in Vogue to copy and alter those images, but then who is checking to make sure that is the true situation?

Anyway, thanks for the words of encouragement about Polaroid works. These are completely hand done, and it is nice to see they are appreciated by others. I have an exhibit starting this weekend in which most of the images I will be showing are Polaroid manipulations. I will also have traditional B/W prints, or Silver Prints as some people might call them.

Okay, so Sean is working on a separate site. I hope it is something like CPUG: Colour Photographers User Group. Hopefully film biased, and accepting of prints to photographic paper, whether done by enlarger or by the lab. That way colour film users not making Cibachromes can just walk away from APUG and leave it to those who are able to be more traditional. Might also be a good site for people who cannot get access to a darkroom, or lack the ability to set up one where they live.

Honesty in imaging is something I mentioned in regards to Dan Burkholder. I do not consider what he does as dishonest. I think it is completely appropriate that he terms his prints as platinum or palladium prints. He is also quite open about how he makes his prints, and the various methods are lightly explained on his website. Anyone buying one of his prints should have no reason to be deceived. My point in mentioning him was to point out that non-traditional steps could be used at an intermediate stage to produce a very traditional looking end result. While something like his sea turtle in a church image does not seem like a possible true capture, it could have been done as a double exposure in camera, and on film . . . just not as easily. Not all of Dan's images are so obvious: at the workshop I attended, he showed us an image of a building in Scotland; the change done in post processing was to take an image of a sky with many clouds, and mask that into the previous building image; without someone seeing both originals, it would be tough to know the final platinum print was not a straight capture and straight print. The point of all this is that it could be easy to fool someone using such methods, if any person was intent on fooling the public; however, that would be dishonest.

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[Jim Jones]

Really, it's the final image that counts. The path the photographer takes to make that final image is much less important. Of course the clients should understand if the image is a silver, chromogenic, ink jet, lithographic, or any of the many other prints. The clients should understand the advantages and shortcomings of whatever type of print they buy. To some photographers and collectors, any digital print is somehow inferior. To others there is no significant difference. It's a matter of personal choice, not a matter of absolute right or wrong.

A strong point of APUG is its exclusive devotion to analog photography. If we included digital technology, we'd be inundated with questions and answers. I can manipulate images better on a digital image editor than in a traditional darkroom, and I'd like to get a quality inkjet for B&W printing. If I can ever afford one, I'll look for information on digital photography on other boards and come here for a film and optical education. Why not use and enjoy the best of both worlds instead of quibbling about them?

 

[roteague]

I chose cibachrome/ilfochrome... not easy and not cheap. I had to make many changes in business, where I live, the way I shoot..etc.... but it is very worth it. One of the greatest benefits is that I am offering a product made my hand without any talk of digital.

It must be nice living near one of the few remaining optical ilfochrome printers left, as for me, I'm not interested in getting into the hazmat shipping business, nor am I ready to move to where you live.

 

[frugal]

I think we're letting a few different terms get all jumbled in here, digital capture, digital manipulation and digital output/printing.

I don't think anyone is arguing to allow digital capture so we can safely ignore that one. But I disagree with the argument that some people seem to be making that digital output = digital manipulation. It can but it doesn't have to.

For me, if I want to shoot slides I have 3 options, scan the slide and make a print digitally, have my lab make an interneg and then make a C-print or not make prints, that's it. Between the loss of quality and control, I can almost eliminate interneg as an option right there, on top of things I can't guarantee that the lab wouldn't take that interneg and just do a C-print digitally anyway, I'm not sure if they still do any analog C-prints.

So if I want prints from slides I'm left with having to do digital prints. That's the option I choose, I scan the slide and the only adjustments I make are to get the colour to match the slide as closely as I can and some slight sharpening to compensate for what was lost in the scanning process. Then I send that to the lab and I end up with a print that's an excellent match to what I sent them. Given the options I have, I'd say it's the closest I can get to having a print that reflects what's on the slide.

As far as whether it's "true" photo paper, well I'd say the fact that it's RA-4 paper that I could just as easily take into an analog darkroom, expose and process means that it is, it's the same stuff. We're not talking about inkjet or dye sub papers that "simulate" photo paper, we're talking about real photo paper. And we're not dealing with an inkjet print where you have tiny dots of ink creating an impression of continuous tone, you have a true continuous tone image. Fundamentally, it's still a photographic process, all that's changed is the method of exposing the paper and that it's a digital file instead of a negative, that's where I see the difference with an inkjet print.

Now I can see the concern that if you open the door to digital output that it is easy for digital manipulation to sneak in. Especially with subtle things that aren't immediately apparent and there's also the issue of enforcing that restriction. But I do agree that the restriction does really hamstring the slide shooters.

I'm fortunate because I've been more into shooting colour negative film and cross-processed slide film lately and I have access to colour darkroom facilities so all my current printing is done with analog methods. I agree that there isn't quite the same magic as B&W but I do still like the anticipation of waiting to see what the print will look like and then adjusting it in the darkroom. I'm lucky in that the school has an RA-4 processor so I'm at least not just spending all my time pouring chemicals and such. For me I think it's just more satisfying than adjusting the sliders in photoshop and I'm lucky enough to be able to work with the process in that way.

 

[roteague]

This is one of many reasons why I have stuck with traditional materials. This talk of hands being tied, no options... is getting really old.

And quite frankly, I'm getting quite fed up with your "holier than thou" comments.

 

[Shane Knight]

It must be nice living near one of the few remaining optical ilfochrome printers left, as for me, I'm not interested in getting into the hazmat shipping business, nor am I ready to move to where you live.

Who says you have to live near the lab? I am doing business with these guys all the time and I am almost 1000 miles away from them. You say you are scared of sending transparencies in the mail... don't you send them to West Coast Imaging to get scanned?

 

[Shane Knight]

And quite frankly, I'm getting quite fed up with your "holier than thou" comments.

for example..........????

 

[srobb_photo]

Well, I guess maybe I might get shot after starting all this mess. Maybe I don't belong here since I am not a "purist" analog photographer. It could be because I don't happen to have the funds for a darkroom and don't live near anyplace where I could use one. I do however have a close by lab that does slide developing. About the only one in the state that does I believe.

For naturephoto1, roteague and others, thank you for your support. It means a lot. I know I do good work and I know it can sell, but I see no reason to spend more money than I need to. That is exactly the reason I will not go digital capture.

I suppose my main thing now is to decide on whether this is a place that I can feel welcome and perhaps learn from some very knowledgeable people I have found here. And that means folks on both sides of this difference of opinion.

 

[naturephoto1]

Who says you have to live near the lab? I am doing business with these guys all the time and I am almost 1000 miles away from them. You say you are scared of sending transparencies in the mail... don't you send them to West Coast Imaging to get scanned?

Shane,

Robert and I for example only send out our transparencies one time that puts them in potential jeopardy of loss or damage. To print them by hand as you do requires that they be shipped and handled every time they are printed (as well as for every size that they are printed if they are printed at different times). Robert and I print our images in many many sizes from the same original file. They do not get handled again and again as do yours.

Rich

 

[naturephoto1]

for example..........????

Shane,

Your attitude and comments.

Rich

 

[removed account4]

Well, I guess maybe I might get shot after starting all this mess. Maybe I don't belong here since I am not a "purist" analog photographer. It could be because I don't happen to have the funds for a darkroom and don't live near anyplace where I could use one. I do however have a close by lab that does slide developing. About the only one in the state that does I believe.

hi srobb

no need to worry about the fire-storm. this one has been raging for many months ... stay for a while and see how things are before flying the coop.
there are all sorts of people here doing all sorts of stuff.
i think you may find many people who are in similar situations as you are, they just don't advertise it.

btw - welcome to apug!

 

[srobb_photo]

hi srobb

no need to worry about the fire-storm. this one has been raging for many months ... stay for a while and see how things are before flying the coop.
there are all sorts of people here doing all sorts of stuff.
i think you may find many people who are in similar situations as you are, they just don't advertise it.

btw - welcome to apug!

Thanks for that. I probably will if for no other reason to try and pick the brains of a few folks. I am only now getting started trying to sell some of my work as notecards. I realize I have to start small because of a limited budget, but as things take off, I want to expand what I sell and my equipment.

 

[garri]

Never ceases to amaze me that no matter what context the post, if it has a digi/film related issue it ends up in a sh@tstorm!!! can we not disagree and discuss like adults? If we came across this conversation between our kids(if we have any) I am sure most of us would expect the kids to be "adult" about it.
Just a thought
Gari

 

[naturephoto1]

Yes Scrobb, welcome to APUG. Sorry about this "debate", but as John (jnanian) mentioned this has been going on for months. Different members have different views on this topic and at times our opinions may get the best of us. Sean has a sister site in preparation that many of us (particularly color transparency shooters) hope will give us a venue and a home.

Rich

 

[srobb_photo]

Yes Scrobb, welcome to APUG. Sorry about this "debate", but as John (jnanian) mentioned this has been going on for months. Different members have different views on this topic and at times our opinions may get the best of us. Sean has a sister site in preparation that many of us (particularly color transparency shooters) hope will give us a venue and a home.

Rich

Thanks, Rich. Guess I just don't see it the same way as others, then what else is new? I don't shoot a whole lot of slides, yet, but that is what I would like to concentrate on even with my 35mm. I just think it gives me a better finished product than regular color film does. I love Velvia.


Not to be a stickler, but it is srobb, not scrobb. That is short for Sylvester Robbins. Thought I would throw that in there for the "Ashamed of you Name" thread.

 

[Lee Shively]

One of the reasons I now shoot black and white almost exclusively is because it is basic and primal and that appeals to me. Color, on the otherhand, is complicated and requires a sophisticated approach.

As much as I dislike digital imaging, I consider it a perfectly legitimate way to print from color film--inkjets or whatever. Doesn't matter to me. It's still film-based.

Black and white needs to be kept basic.

 

[Shane Knight]

Shane,

Robert and I for example only send out our transparencies one time that puts them in potential jeopardy of loss or damage. To print them by hand as you do requires that they be shipped and handled every time they are printed (as well as for every size that they are printed if they are printed at different times). Robert and I print our images in many many sizes from the same original file. They do not get handled again and again as do yours.

Rich

Actually, when I need to send out transparencies, I send them one time as you do. They are kept safe at the lab in a fire proof vault, so each time that transparency needs to be used, it is right there ready to go. I have met quite a few labs that offer this service. If they didn't have this option, I would still use them.
Before I had this option, I was using a different lab 1000 miles away and they sent the originals back and forth for over 8 years and never had a lost or damage package. If losing a package would of have happened, I would count my loses and kept on using them.

I don't care what price I have to pay, I am going to do what ever I need to do to keep my art work 100% traditional. It hasn't been an easy road, but by doing so has made me better and happier at what I do.


Regarding my attitude:

Lately you and Roteague have a pretty poor attitude when this subject comes up and both of you are getting more aggressive about expressing your point which is trying to get your digital process accepted here on APUG.
Maybe its just me, but you guys make it sound that you speak for all of us color photographers and that we need special attention and rules because of the processes you have chosen.
Both of you have so much to offer to this site, but can you just keep APUG APUG.

Maybe I am just blowing this out of proportion and I should just get back to work.

Srobb, your thread is valid and was a good question, and I apologize for attacking this issue and your thread with a poor attitude, sometimes my passion gets the best of me. I hope you keep shooting film and have a presence here on APUG. There is a great deal for all of us to share and learn. Sorry about misspelling your name also.

peace-
Shane

 

[naturephoto1]

snip

Regarding my attitude:

Lately you and Roteague have a pretty poor attitude when this subject comes up and both of you are getting more aggressive about expressing your point which is trying to get your digital process accepted here on APUG.
Maybe its just me, but you guys make it sound that you speak for all of us color photographers and that we need special attention and rules because of the processes you have chosen.
Both of you have so much to offer to this site, but can you just keep APUG APUG.

snip

peace-
Shane

Shane,

Points perhaps well taken. There are many of us in this situation however. Perhaps we have gotten a bit more aggressive, but like you we have strong feelings about the subject. We can agree to disagree.

Hope we can just go forward from this and continue as if this did not happen.

Srobb,

Sorry about the misspelling.

Rich

 

[Shane Knight]

Shane,

Points perhaps well taken. There are many of us in this situation however. Perhaps we have gotten a bit more aggressive, but like you we have strong feelings about the subject. We can agree to disagree.

Hope we can just go forward from this and continue as if this did not happen.


Rich

Rich,
You bet.... happy shootin'

Shane